JW Insider

We all have the choices of many possible religions to follow. Or we can follow our own understanding which can be very dangerous. Wisdom is best found in a multitude of counselors. This organization has not changed all its teachings. But if it had, I can't see how that matters so much unless they are currently lying about all the changes. Still, even if all the teachings have changed over time, this could even be a good sign that a filtering and refining work is going on. Ultimately, with all the choices, I would still look for a religion that attempts to preach the good news. The content of that preaching might change . . . I would expect it to. But I would still look for a successful worldwide implementation of a preaching work based on the words of Matthew 24:14. I would also look for a religion that stays out of nationalistic conflicts both internal and external. There are very few religions that promote neutrality and are all conscientious objectors to violence and killing for nationalistic purposes. My own understanding of God and his purpose would make me look for a religion that opposes the Trinity doctrine and opposes the doctrine of Hellfire and eternal torment.

I think that the exception has been pretty consistent. It has always been with respect to the primary goal of finding more ways to spread the Kingdom message more efficiently. (Philippians 1:4-7) . . ., 5 because of the contribution you have made to the good news from the first day until this moment. 6 For I am confident of this very thing, that the one who started a good work in you will bring it to completion until the day of Christ Jesus. 7 It is only right for me to think this regarding all of you, since I have you in my heart, you who are sharers with me in the undeserved kindness both in my prison bonds and in the defending and legally establishing of the good news. (1 Timothy 2:1-4) 2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be made concerning all sorts of men, 2 concerning kings and all those who are in high positions, so that we may go on leading a calm and quiet life with complete godly devotion and seriousness. 3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth. JW attorneys have not worked with the goal of fixing this world through better laws and more inclusive civil rights, but I see no reason why this would be condemned. Cases have been argued right up to the supreme court of the United States and in high courts elsewhere with the goal of legally establishing the preaching work. (See especially Covington, Moyle and some more recent cases.) So while it's true that Jesus did not push for social reform directly, he was concerned about protecting as many as possible from the situation that was about to come upon the lost house of Israel. Paul, however, used political leverage to help establish the preaching of God's Kingdom.

But they weren't were they? Paul admitted failings. Peter admitted failings. Paul chastised Peter, James and John. All of them had wrong ideas. We can think that they got all they needed at Pentecost to make them "perfect." But these failings lasted well beyond Pentecost. So we are forced to take a reasonable approach to what it means to be "perfect." There are scriptural principles which probably explain this saying of Jesus perfectly well in the context of the Christian congregation. For now, I think you will at least agree that the apostles were not perfect. Yet we can still imitate them in ways defined by scripture. And the early teaching was that the great crowd were also anointed. Lately there have been articles that teach that many scriptures which were only recently applied just to the anointed, can now also be applied to the great crowd who have an earthly hope. To the extent that they have exalted themselves, they are wrong. To the extent that they have tried their best be servants (a faithful slave class) they have perhaps seemed exalted, too. I don't think this is the criteria by which we accept or reject the doctrines they promote.

I don't think the GB praise themselves as much as is implied here. They have recognized that they have an awesome responsibility caring for the flock. And if they are true believers that the blessings bestowed upon this organization truly come from Jehovah, then this recognition of the seriousness of the responsibility of trying to lead such an organization is a given. They see themselves trying to organize the worldwide work, coordinate the distribution of Bible-based publications, make decisions about serious issues affecting the ministry. One of the obvious issues is legally establishing the preaching work in an effective manner under the current laws of many countries. When those laws are not in our favor they have pushed to have them changed or clarified such that religious and civil rights are protected. This has helped others, too. There are even cases where those laws are so much against our preaching activities that the GB have devised ways to try to circumvent those laws because we honestly feel they conflict with God's law to preach the good news of the Kingdom. This has sometimes been effective and sometimes not and sometimes we just can't know whether it is or it isn't. It should be seen that the position of a Governing Body is a natural outgrowth of such a work and such an organization. It makes sense that the Lutheran Church, the Methodist, the Baptists, etc., all have similar groups that act as leaders of their activities. When the GB look back for Biblical precedents, they see the apostles, but do not wish to claim "apostolic succession." So they look for another Biblical precedent, and find one that seems appropriate. Jesus once told about how, in the time of the end that his servants could be likened to a household where the Master had gone for some time, and his return was delayed. It would be easy to imagine the chaos that could overrun a household of servants in such a situation. It would be easy to imagine how some would invariably act faithfully, and some would act unfaithfully. How do employees act when the boss has been away for some time and no one knows if he is returning tomorrow, next week, or next year! Jesus said that that he would be able to identify who was really a faithful and wise servant, and who was an unfaithful and unwise servant. This would be by the way they acted during the time that the Master was gone. This illustration seems appropriate because it had traditionally been referenced as far back as Nelson Barbour to hint that he might be that faithful and wise servant. Russell used the same verse to indicate that he himself was that "faithful and wise servant." Personally I don't think it's about any particular leaders at all, it's just a parable showing how easy it would be --due to the apparent delay of Christ's parousia-- to act unfaithfully and unwisely if we aren't putting the interests of the "household of faith" first. It's an illustration that spends a lot more time on the ways that this "servant" might be shown to be UNFAITHFUL rather than focusing on how faithful a particular slave might be. It's about one of the difficulties in remaining faithful, as we walk by faith not by sight, putting faith in the one who is unseen. This fits Jesus words in related parables: (Luke 18:7-14) . . .Certainly, then, will not God cause justice to be done for his chosen ones who cry out to him day and night, while he is patient toward them? 8 I tell you, he will cause justice to be done to them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man arrives, will he really find this faith on the earth?” 9 He also told this illustration to some who trusted in their own righteousness and who considered others as nothing: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, the one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and began to pray these things to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like everyone else—extortioners, unrighteous, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give the tenth of all things I acquire.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing at a distance, was not willing even to raise his eyes heavenward but kept beating his chest, saying, ‘O God, be gracious to me, a sinner.’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his home and was proved more righteous than that Pharisee. Because everyone who exalts himself will be humiliated, but whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” The irony of course is that the Bible says not to be wise in your own eyes. To most Witnesses if anyone disagrees with the GB on any particular topic, they are accused of becoming "wise in their own eyes." So the fact that the GB are considered "wise" is used as a kind of weapon to "beat" their fellow slaves. It's true that a lot of so called "wisdom" that people put forward about their own view of the Bible and critiques of various doctrines are clearly so far off that it really ought to be brought under some kind of arrangement to produce unity and agreement in our speech and doctrine. And it might seem that the only way to speak in unity about doctrine is to accept some person or small group as the doctrinal authority. For about 100 years in our organization this was always pretty much one person at a time: CTRussell, JFRutherford, FWFranz. So again, it makes sense that a specific person or small group who agree on what is right is the easiest and most logical fallback position - from a human standpoint at least. Some of what you said is specific and is based on discussions of specific scriptural points. These points are good and should be discussed. But part of this argument seems based on the supposed absurdity idea of a group of imperfect persons, making doctrinal mistakes, could still provide doctrinal and other types of organizational leadership. I accept that you have pointed out some claims that should not have been made from a scriptural point of view. These should be taken seriously. But I also think that it is natural and expected that a "governing body" of this sort exists, imperfections and all, and is used for a particular purpose that is very close to the current purpose.

I don't know the answer sorry. (maybe FB,Twitter, etc?) Perhaps the "admin" or "The Librarian" would know what counts as a share.

The first issue of the Watchtower made the point that truth is truth even if it comes from the mouth of Satan the Devil. Of course, we might expect the Devil to be selective about which truth to reveal, how much of it, and then be on the lookout for ulterior motives. Same is true of truth from anywhere. I think your attitude in the above statements shows reasonableness. You might know that I also do not think the GB are the exact equivalent of the "faithful and discreet slave" of Jesus' parable. But this does not mean that we can't learn from the GB, get spiritual food from the GB, learn to grow and mature from such food, and then grow into mature Christians ourselves who should be able to distinguish right from wrong, and move on to more mature doctrines, including "standing on our own." I think that the GB serve a purpose within the congregation. They are imperfect and should never give the impression that their word is final. As one of them has publicly admitted, this would be very presumptuous of them if they did this. A lot of Witnesses are anxious to relieve themselves from any spiritual responsibility and push all their thinking off on others, not realizing that this was never the way Jehovah intended for any of us to worship him. So a lot of JWs effectively "worship" the GB and hang on their every word. Sometimes that reverence for the GB takes a more subtle 'tack' and we begin to think that criticism of the GB makes Satan happy. Or that questioning the GB is the same as doubting Jehovah. I won't bore you with a dozen scripture showing why this is wrong, because I suspect you already know them.

I'm usually very much against conspiracy theories, but there is a common game played in Social Media that supports evidence of a "psyop." For those not aware of the prevalence of psyops on Facebook and Twitter for example, here's a Google provided definition: Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. When Mexico is in the news, for example, someone can find a Trump-positive message that could either provide a catalyst to Trump supporters, or a Trump defense as push-back against Trump detractors. So let's analyze the above Twitter story for evidence of a "psyop." First of all, it appears to be new and therefore newsworthy in the face of the "wall" controversy with Mexico. It's dated January 4th, 2019. But it's not new. It's two year old news masquerading as new news. If you click on the USA Today link, you will see it's from January 2017. That leads to the second piece of "psyop" evidence. Notice that it's not only from January, but is from the exact same day January 4, 2017 to appear as if possibly from January 4, 2019 - only off by a single character. Good enough to pass the IAS (Internet Attention Span). Ford cancels Mexico plant, expands U.S. factory and adds 700 jobs Nathan Bomey, USA TODAY Published 11:14 a.m. ET Jan. 3, 2017 | Updated 6:00 p.m. ET Jan. 4, 2017 And of course, the last thing it does is make Ford appear a bit patriotic, or perhaps makes Trump look like a winner. Curiously, this same piece of news was being discussed in June 2017 after Ford had decided that it would continue with its plans to move to China. Here is the BBC coverage focusin both on the cancellation of Mexico and the move to China instead: ------------remainder of this post contains excerpts from the BBC article : Ford to move production of US Focus to China 20 June 2017 Image copyright PEDRO PARDO/AFP/Getty Image caption Ford abandoned plans for a new factory in Mexico Ford is to move production of its new Ford Focus car to China in 2019, despite having faced pressure to keep manufacturing jobs in America. The carmaker said the decision would not lead to layoffs in the US. But the move marks another change to its plans for producing the new Focus. The firm in January scrapped plans to move US production to a new $1.6bn (£1.3bn) plant in Mexico after criticism from Donald Trump. Currently, Ford makes its Focus cars in Michigan, Germany and in China. . . . It may be the president's hands-on style of pressuring companies into bringing production to the US was only effective for a few months. In January, Ford said it would abandon the new factory and move production to an existing plant in Hermosillo, Mexico instead. At the time, the company said it would use the savings to invest at a different plant in Michigan working on electric cars. But Tuesday's announcement means Ford will make the new Focus in China, instead of Hermosillo - producing $500m in savings. . . . Ford sold about 67,150 Focus cars in the US in the first five months of 2017, down almost 20% from 2016.

As opposed to what? Would we expect an army to be told NOT to be battle-ready?

This is a good point. In fact, most of the things you have said in your post coincide with things I have also believed. It should be pointed out though that scientists, at least those who deal with sociological issues are quick to point out that there has been more profit for many millennia in claiming that one has wisdom from God. Those who have been paying science pipers get pretty much the same answer from 99% of them, but those who have been paying the god's-wisdom pipers have been getting thousands of divergent answers from 99% of them. This is true. There was never any Biblical evidence. It was all conjecture and wishful thinking, based on nothing at all. Therefore, there is no reason to think that the creative days were the same length, nor that any of them would have been limited to less than a billion years each. Our only reason for claiming that they were not 24 hours each is that we have decided to accept some of the evidence from scientists. I won't try to answer for Arauna, but I think that many Witnesses are still concerned about the "slippery slope" of accepting scientific evidence without the approval of the Governing Body through direct statements in the Watchtower publications. I've also heard it specifically admitted by GB "representatives" that this is one of the reasons that college is considered to be so dangerous. It's because the GB and the researchers and writers of our publications don't have time to rule on every single piece of evidence, as to whether it can be accepted, rejected, or partially accepted in a re-defined chronological context. The practice at many colleges is to ask the student to evaluate the importance of various pieces of evidence, and this puts Witness students in a "bind." For example, I know of JWs who even in High School, have decided to accept evolution in the context of their classes and reject it in the context of the congregation. One of them brought up a topic to me that I decided to look into when an opportunity arose. I knew that scientists have long theorized that birds evolved from dinosaurs based only on skeletal evidence comparing birds and dinosaurs. Then, more recently, fossils were discovered with patterns of fossilized "feathers" preserved with the skeleton in the exact places where such feathers would have been expected. This confused me, and I was sure that they were being interpreted as feathers, but were actually "ferns" or leaves or a superimposed skeleton of a separate bird. But then more of them showed up. I was at a museum on the campus of Yale university in New Haven, CT, and saw some for myself, and asked a specialist there if they could possibly be anything else. He showed me that this was not even controversial any more. There were now several of these fossils. I would not know how to treat such evidence if I were in a class that discussed it. My father still thinks they are ferns or misinterpretations. My mother still thinks that Satan has manipulated some of the evidence from fossils. Of course, that theory is common among "Young Earth" fundamentalists, too, but it causes many more questions. If Satan can make small adjustments in the evidence, why not make bigger adjustments? Was he given a limit as to the number of adjustments he could make, and a limited number of places to bury them?

I notice he also claims that anyone who doesn't believe that Communism killed 100,000,000 people should do some serious thinking about their historical knowledge or moral character. I think he doesn't even realize that in this regard he is just another snowflake who retreats to the safe space of Western propaganda on this particular topic. Communism may have killed plenty of people but no one has yet been able to produce evidence of these huge numbers, only claims and propaganda. But there is actual physical evidence and corpses to provide proof that fascism and imperialism as tools of capitalism have killed hundreds of millions. The evidence that communism has had a chance yet to approach anything like the numbers already produced by imperialism is non-existent. Jordon Peterson believes it because he needs to do some serious thinking about his historical knowledge, or --according to his own words-- perhaps even his moral character.

Theoretically, the Sun is "orbiting" a galaxy center of mass, the Earth is a satellite orbiting the Sun, and the Moon is a satellite orbiting the Earth. NASA has even put small satellites in orbit around the Moon for short periods of time. Perhaps Cruithne, which orbits the Sun along the similar path to the Earth was once in orbit around the Moon (unlikely). It orbits the Sun once per earthly year, same as Earth. It is effectively a second moon to the Earth. But it has quite a different orbital path around the Sun:

I imagine that in the initial flotsam and jetsam of stars, planets, moons, particles, rings, etc, that it would be difficult to design a stable orbit of a large satellite (moon) around an existing moon without that orbit being too much "perturbed" by the controlling planet in combination with the controlling moon. It can happen, and probably has happened a lot, but being unstable, most of them have already been thrown out of orbit. I have wondered if a dual star can have planets for the same reason. Perhaps someone knows?

When people find out that these "opened up archives" contradict the accepted stories they soon begin arguing that the archives have not been opened up, or that all the archives have been whitewashed. After about 4 minutes into the interview, every point became predictable, and most of them were unsubstantiated falsehoods and opinion. He has a lot of things correct, but most of it is complete pseudo-scholarship. I think that pseudo-scholarship is the only kind of scholarship on THIS topic has a guaranteed profitable audience. People should still hear what these people (like Stephen Kotkin, Timothy Snyder, Solzhenitsyn, etc) are saying as the important basis for this discussion, but they should compare it with the scholarship of those who are deemed pseudo-scholars by people like Stephen Kotkin and Timothy Snyder. J. Arch Getty and Grover Furr have put a lot of work into evaluating the evidence of men like Kotkin. Naturally they are seen as pseudo-scholars by the other side, too. I have a feeling that truth lies towards the middle of the two ends, but the more I take time to check out the claims for myself, the more I see that this "middle" lies MUCH closer to the Getty/Furr end rather than the Kotkin/Snyder end. Here are just some quick excerpts Furrs' book which is a response to Snyder's most famous work on Stalin: Bloodlands. [After spelling out a primary example of clear scholastic dishonesty in detail, Grover Furr says this about Snyder's use of sources:] Upon checking Snyder's source we normally find either (1) that his source does not support what Snyder's text says or imply that it does; or (2) that the source does reflect what Snyder says in his text but that source itself is dishonest, in that (a) it does not reflect what its own evidence states or (b) its source is yet another secondary source which, when examined, does not support the fact-claims given; or (c) it cites no evidence at all. I happen to own this book and several others by Furr, Getty, and Snyder in real paper variety, too, plus the Gulag Archipelago. I'd love to quote large chunks, but someone has OCR scanned it at: https://rhizzone.net/forum/topic/13291/?page=1 The intro, chapter 1 and chapter 2 are on that first page, with chapters 3 and 4 landing on page 4: https://rhizzone.net/forum/topic/13291/?page=4 (There are a lot of comments worth skipping in between.) In fact if you look up in Google: Kotkin and Grover Furr, you should see links to about 10 videos. Some are up to two hours long, so I'd start with some short ones: Videos 4:51 Grover Furr on the myth of the Holodomor (1932-1933) karimberdi YouTube - Mar 22, 2017 42:17 Grover Furr on the conspiracies against Joseph Stalin ulaghchi YouTube - Jun 14, 2018 8:15 An audience with Grover Furr Proletarian TV YouTube - Apr 21, 2018 1:57:30 Grover Furr Lecture on anti-Stalin propaganda TheFinnishBolshevik YouTube - Nov 14, 2018 6:07 Grover Furr on Joseph Stalin's struggle for democracy mengutimur YouTube - Sep 15, 2017 2:02:36 An Evening with Grover Furr Enaa YouTube - Mar 10, 2014 22:19 Everything you know about Russia and the USSR is a lie. Dr. Grover ... Jeff J. Brown YouTube - Aug 18, 2018 1:54 Grover Furr on American lies about Joseph Stalin jabarbadi YouTube - Mar 24, 2017

This is definitely true. Of course, each person will have their own experience. And the same overall decisions will effect everyone differently. If you were part of a poor peasant family under the terribly inefficient system of serfdom under czarist Russia, then you will have quite a different experience after 1917 from one who had a business in St. Petersburg. Or if you lived in one of the 14 provinces that Russia gave up to Germany during WWI, but had to give back after the German losses and the 1918 Treaty of Versailles. Or if you had been part of the Duma, or if you were yourself a prior landowner, or if you were a person like one of the large variety of characters in Tolstoy novels, Pushkin, Dostoevsky, or Sholem Aleichem (Tevye - Fiddler on Roof, etc). Fortunately, there were a lot of interviews with Russians who stayed throughout the years. Many records and interviews come from people who lived under communist rule under Lenin, Stalin, Krushchev, etc, and many from those who could speak more freely about their government after communism fell. All along we also have defectors from Russia who have told their stories. We also have stories from ex-pats who moved in and out of Russia. "Subversives" who lived in and out of Russia. But to get a full picture, we have to put ALL these stories together, and see how they match up against internal documentation (with expected bias) and external documentation (with expected bias) and defector stories (with expected bias) and those who lived under these "regimes" (with expected bias). And then there is a ton of "material" evidence to sift through, too. It's also easy to see what happens to those who have tried to get a more accurate picture if the new picture conflicts with a current one. Sometimes it must seem like an argument that goes like this: A. Hitler killed 40,000,000 people. B. No he didn't, he only killed 20,000,000 people. A. Why do you love Hitler? But the variation in stories about Lenin, Stalin and Mao, for example, make this history even more intriguing.

You probably didn't miss much in his books, but one could go on for thousands of pages about where the most credible evidence about Russian history differs considerably from the perspectives that the West has been given. Solzhenitsyn (I'll call him A.S., if you don't mind) wrote very credibly from a literary perspective. The West ate it up. So did at least 10 minority political/social factions in and around Russia who had fought against Russia being ruled by the communist party. In fact, A.S. was one of the earliest promoters of the fantastic conspiratorial numbers of the supposed hidden Gulag system that he said was still operating on a massive scale, in secret, with millions of people even during the Cold War. Remember, of course, that his books from 1958-68 were published in 1973-4. (Communism underwent changes in the mid-1980's under Gorbachev, leading to the collapse of the communist government under Yeltsin and the Russian Federation in 1991.) Those fantastic numbers had not really been invented yet until he created a version of them. However, even when communism fell, there was still absolutely no evidence of an ongoing Gulag system. One would have to assume that it is still in operation today, and still secret, and that all those anti-communists were never released when communism fell and therefore never allow to help the current leaders now that Russia is run by anti-communists who want to paint a very bad picture of historical Russia under communism. Surely, these millions of political prisoners described by A.S. could help paint the picture and prove the claims that would keep the communist party at bay. (The communist party is Putin's only true competitor at present.) Yet more and more evidence continues to show up about the actual Gulag system from various sources, even Russian enemies. It consistently shows that it was nothing like a system of torture and death that A.S. describes. More evidence comes forth from the release of historical documents from Russia, and many of these are perfectly dovetailed with the evidence from the release of historical documents from Russia's worst enemies including the release of Nazi documents, Japanese documents, etc. The Gulag system was actually Russia's prison system that went back to feudalism, the czars, the Duma. Criminals were to be rehabilitated with sentences that typically maxed out at about 10 years, after which the prisoner was released, with exceptions for multiple murders or heinous crime. There are, of course, abuses in every institution (look at American prisons, too) but Russian prisons were unique in many ways. Where we typically hear stories of exile to Siberia, and monotonous crushing of rocks, the prisons really did include building activities, sometimes mining, sometimes roads, and buildings, but not with slavery and the chain-gang systems common to American prisons. The Gulag was especially full during WW2 with captured prisoners from other nations, but many were given land to farm, or even a place with their family. In fact some German Gulag prisoners, although still hated for their politics, were actually paid more than the average Russian for their work on equipment -- their material production. Stalin himself had been sentenced to the Gulag half-a-dozen times, and escaped each time before serving out a full sentence. We should remember the context: A.S. came from a large group of displaced Czarists, sometimes called "White Russians" as opposed to Red (Communist), Green and later Brown Russians (Fascists), and Czarists really were often imprisoned and mistreated. This group composed the earliest and most saboteuristic of the parties in the Russian Civil War from 1918 after WWI. And Stalin really did imprison thousands, and one of his security chiefs, Yezhov and his henchmen, really did imprison probably "200,000", and this probably included thousands of murders and unjust deaths. (As stated before, when Stalin recalled Yezhov and replaced him with Beria, the reports of deaths dropped dramatically, and some say up to 91% of the "200,000" were released.) But Stalin, a paranoid leader, amidst powerful saboteurs, was also personally responsible for many hundreds of unjust imprisonments and likely many executions, too. So almost every bad story heard must have had at least some truth to it, even if the several-orders-of-magnitude differences had not been invented until decades later. (Of course some of the violence of the Civil War could not be stopped and had little to do with Communism. It was the peasantry running wild after Germany had colluded with Lenin to help crush the Czar. They were killing their landowners and taking the land. Lenin, of course, wrote against this, but there was nothing they could do about it except condemn it. Lenin argued with Marx that successful communism should be built on the backs of capitalism, and supported the capitalist status quo as the basis for continuing the revolution.) But again, credibility comes from the fact that Stalin really did promote frequent purges, where lists of thousands of members of the communist party were dismissed from the party. Stalin's purges have often been confused with so-called "death lists" but it primarily meant that you lost your privileges as members of the party, and therefore your aspirations of political advancement were gone. Of course, this dismissal from the party could often be based on one's committing crimes, even war crimes, war profiteering, etc. So executions especially during the excesses of war, could have been fairly common. The writings of "White Russians" (Czarists) were common and held to the same common themes whether from those who escaped Russia in all directions, including all parts of Canada, even families I have spoken to that ended up in Brooklyn. A major theme, of course, for credibility is to build off some of the violence, and excesses and injustice and magnify it to defend against the communist government. But these stories, are full of lies as they exaggerate different things, and full of inconsistencies as some will pick different areas where the problems were and report that there were no problems in areas that another writer will pick on. These types of fabrications need to be merged ALL the evidence in ways that various scholars have attempted. Some scholars are better than others, of course. But when even anti-communists, or non-supporters of communists who have accepted A.S. and other writers in the past have begun to recant based on EVIDENCE, then it's probably time that the rest of us at least looked at some of this same evidence. There is no perfect way to get historical truth from history, but there are still some methods that are better than others. We can't just decide to reject all scholarly evidence in favor of a writer who fits into an existing group who have been continuously discredited by all new evidence, while even unexpected sources of new evidence will uphold the current body of existing evidence. In other words, I don't think this is a valid guideline quoted below, because it simply says ignore anything that doesn't fit the very source of most of our prejudices: To be sure, A.S. does provide pieces of evidence that can't be ignored outright. But we have to evaluate them for what they're worth. There is a ton of specifics that would take days and pages. But I think as we begin to discuss claims like "orchestrated famines" "death purges" supposed "massacres" etc., the picture will come into better focus.

Thanks. I believe you. Should have known. I've heard rumors go wild before. Apostates who were dismissed in the Spring of 1980 were all suddenly supposed to have been homosexual swingers and wife-swappers. If there had been only 2 baby seals in an imaginary Bethel Zoo, I'm sure that eye-witnesses would seen them taking turns clubbing 50 of them.

If there had been footage of this event, it would have been copied about 1,000 times and repeatedly watched by about 100,000,000 people. And it would have been promoted further by the FBI and Pentagon as part of the background to justify the war on terror. The rumors of the "Palestinians" was undoubtedly triggered as a response to the arrest and deportation of at least 2 of the 5 Israelis who were driving a white van and filming the event. I began watching the local NYC news immediately as the event happened within 48 blocks from my office, and one of my secretaries was killed, having recently changed jobs to Cantor-Fitzgerald, the same company where the wife of my boss worked -- and who survived by being on maternity leave. There were reports of possible Palestinians in a white van that we remembered very clearly, and when it was discovered that they were Israelis working for a Jewish-owned moving company, the idea was dismissed from all the major channels but still discussed on radio. To counteract the fact that these cheering persons were found to be Israeli, several anonymous people began calling into radio stations later in the week with unsubstantiated claims that Palestinians were also celebrating from rooftops. Over the next year, people even began remembering that they had "seen" these Palestinian celebrators. I would not agree with all the conclusions made on the "Catholic World" website, there was a lot of confusion over how to handle the news. Here is what the website http://www.todayscatholicworld.com/mossad-agents-911.htm says, in part: -----------the rest of this post includes excerpts from that website where I have highlighted some points in red--------------- The Five Dancing "Israelis" Arrested On 9-11 On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attacks would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good……. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)" The FBI came to the conclusion... that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front. -Forward (A Jewish Magazine) March 15, 2002 "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information." --US official quoted in Carl Cameron's Fox News report (that was later erased from the Fox News website) on the Israeli spy ring and its connections to 9-11. Two of the "Five Dancing Israelies" According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal — and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home. While the former detainees refused to answer ABCNEWS' questions about their detention and what they were doing on Sept. 11, several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, "Our purpose was to document the event." . . . Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. The FBI seized and developed their photos, one of which shows Sivan Kurzberg flicking a cigarette lighter in front of the smouldering ruins in an apparently celebratory gesture. The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here's what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001: American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported. (Jerusalem Post 09/12/01) The van was reported to be laden down with tons of explosives. What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20, the New York Post, and the New Jersey Bergen Record all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel. But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva), and Yediot America, all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel. It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five. . . . From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks. The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through." (The Mercury Philadelphia, PA 10/17/01 ) A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He was in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities (21). It was later confirmed that the five detained Israelis were in fact Mossad agents. (Forward Magazine). They were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept in solitary confinement for 40 days. Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home. Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." How did they know there would be an event to document on 9-11?

I see that there are over 50 names of so called JW abusers in this list related to California's jurisdictions. Although I only skimmed them, I noticed that one said "Case Dismissed. .... insufficient evidence." But it still had a name next to it. I would be careful trying to publicize such a document if it contains unsubstantiated information with names in it.

As far as I could see, Ewart Chitty did not appear effeminate, but it was often said that Edgar Clay was effeminate in a way that kind of creeped out other Bethelites. This might just be prejudice talking as I never crossed paths with Edgar Clay. Someone told me that Bro Chitty went back to live with this same man after he was dismissed from Bethel and dismissed from the Governing Body. That rumor seems unlikely, but did concern me at the time when I first heard it. If anyone has ever heard anything to confirm or disconfirm this, it might be of interest for this particular topic. Perhaps Edgar Clay was not even alive after Chitty left?

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was found to be a liar. He probably never expected communism to fall, even though its fall was the dream he lived for. Because when it fell, the things that he claimed were in existence turned out not to have existed. He was not as pro-Christian as he was pro-Czarist.

Just a little more longwinded opinion here. I think his tone and most of his words were intended to portray himself as someone who recognizes that there were and are human rights issues to take care of now and to avoid in the future. He also is is to be seen as a source of wise advice, giving the impression that if he had just known some of these issues in advance that he would have known better ways to handle these things. But he also recognizes that some issues are too complex to make snap decisions about on the spot. He gives the impression that he is generally knowledgeable, perhaps had an idea about some of these issues, but was really just now learning the specifics, either on the spot or from reading the papers provided in preparation for the meeting. Otherwise he would be portraying himself and therefore the Russian nation as knowingly culpable in any of the errors that had been made in the name of the state. That's the big difference in using the term to mean "prosecute" vs "persecute." If he had intentionally used the term to mean "persecute" this would have been very much at odds with that tenor -- it admits national culpability -- and that he KNOWS there is national culpability. That's why it is very different from "prosecute" which admits only procedural error at most, e.g., too strict a definition being put on the word "extremist," and therefore something that could potentially be redressed merely through a change or adjustment in judicial procedure, if deemed necessary. To me, his words indicate that he would not be averse to a positive change in the procedure against "extremist" groups, especially when these are generally seen as "Christian" groups. It seems he would be more forgiving of first time offenses of trying to proselytize. I don't get the impression that he, on his own, will want to make a big deal of what happened with the Witnesses. But he will no doubt be informed again of the JW status and will be more knowledgeable each time he is re-informed, and this could easily lead to a situation very soon where he asks for a change to the procedure against JWs. The JWs may have to "compromise" in the sense of being more of an autonomous religious group in Russia that doesn't give the impression that it merely takes all marching orders from outside of Russia (New York). To work well in Russia, the state wants to know that tens of thousands of people are not going to suddenly begin carrying "Religion is a Snare and a Racket" signs in the streets, or drink Kool-Aid, or collect money for a corporation in Wallkill, New York where instruction will trickle down through other branches to update rules about where new Halls will be built, what to do about national anthems, military service, blood transfusion policy, or look to an internal judicial system that could be seen as competing with or overriding that of the state. When he is advised again about the JWs, he will be concerned about how it looks to his own nation, outside international organizations, how it reflects on himself, and therefore, if making a change is useful or worth the effort. I don't get the impression he is anxious to make a big deal about it. I see it very possible that his own advisors on these issues could talk him out of doing something, even if he thinks it is advisable. I see right now as a good time for the WTS HQ to help orchestrate the leverage of human rights organizations. Getting 8 million people to write the same set of letters is not as impressive to him as it seems to us, because it only proves that the very thing he doesn't want in a Russian religion, exists to the nth degree in our religion: that everyone follows orders from the same HQ outside of Russia.

Interested. I knew him, but not very well. He was the hardest to get to know of all the 18 members of the Governing Body who were simultaneously on the Governing Body at the same time he was.

Sorry about that. Sometimes he inspires me! Some more trivialities: The "Frank and Ernest" comic strip actually has billed itself as the "Hot Dog Comic Strip" because of a long-running hot dog theme, and these, of course, have nothing to do with the Watchtower's old radio show on WBBR called "Frank and Ernest." But it is true that this radio show moved over from the Watchtower's Bible Students to "Dawn Publishing" in 1928 or so where it kept going, to become one of the longest running radio shows ever.

I'd love to deal with this in more detail. As part of a study related to the new "Ezekiel" book (Gog/Magog/etc), and TTH's book on Russia, I have been interested in a prolonged study including reading parts of several books on the topic, and 100% of a few more. There is so much information on this that I should probably continue this part of the discussion under that topic about Stalin and Mao. Looks like I might have to add North Korea to that topic, too. It'll probably have to wait until tomorrow, however. I'll have more free time because of the holiday.

The original idea of the United States constitution was to have a state that conformed only to the interest of rich landowners. Only rich landowners could vote. Most men in the United States could not vote, to say nothing for women and slaves. This was to create a powerful central state of ELITE that controlled the thoughts and ideas and material assets of the 99% of the rest of the population.